Justice Beyond the Courtroom: The Verdict in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors. and the Right to Dignity

On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors., directing the construction of separate toilet facilities in all courts and tribunals across the country. At first glance, the ruling might seem like a simple administrative order, but its significance runs much deeper—it is a decision that underscores the essential human right to dignity.

The State of Court Infrastructure: A Long-Standing Issue
For decades, the lack of proper sanitation facilities in Indian courts has been a persistent yet overlooked problem. Lawyers, litigants, and court staff—particularly women—have had to navigate an environment that is often unsanitary and inadequate. In many lower courts, basic amenities like clean washrooms are either missing or in deplorable condition, making court visits an ordeal, especially for female advocates and petitioners.

Justice, after all, is not just about legal principles and verdicts. It is also about ensuring that those seeking and delivering justice are treated with respect. The Court’s ruling is, therefore, not just about constructing toilets—it is about recognizing the inherent dignity of all individuals who step inside a courtroom.

The Gendered Reality of Court Facilities
The lack of separate toilets disproportionately affects women in the legal profession. Female lawyers, litigants, and court staff often struggle with unhygienic or non-existent restrooms, making it difficult for them to function effectively in a profession that is already male-dominated. This systemic neglect has, over time, created an unspoken barrier to women’s full participation in the legal system.

By mandating separate toilet facilities, the Court has taken a step toward gender inclusivity in the legal profession. While this order may not dismantle the larger issues of gender disparity in law, it is a crucial recognition that institutional infrastructure plays a role in shaping professional experiences.

Beyond Toilets: A Larger Conversation on Access to Justice
The ruling in Rajeeb Kalita is emblematic of a broader conversation about court infrastructure in India. If a basic necessity like clean restrooms has been ignored for so long, what does that say about the state of accessibility in our judicial system? Courtrooms across the country are plagued with problems—lack of accessibility for persons with disabilities, overcrowded waiting areas, poor ventilation, and minimal technological advancements.

The judgment should serve as a wake-up call. If courts are to be temples of justice, they must not merely function as spaces for legal adjudication but also as environments that uphold the dignity and well-being of all who enter them. Accessibility and infrastructure should not be afterthoughts—they are fundamental to the efficient delivery of justice.

The Way Forward
Implementing the Court’s directive will require more than just policy decisions—it will require a shift in mindset. Judicial authorities and state governments must prioritize infrastructure reforms, ensuring that facilities are maintained long after their construction. A one-time order will not suffice unless there is a sustained commitment to improvement.

Moreover, this ruling should set a precedent for future judicial interventions on similar issues. If the judiciary can recognize the importance of basic sanitation, it can also take up matters of court digitization, physical accessibility, and overall modernization. The ruling should not be the end of a conversation—it should be the beginning of a movement toward better, more humane court environments.

Conclusion
The verdict in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors. is a victory for dignity, gender equality, and access to justice. It reminds us that legal systems must be designed not just to deliver justice but to uphold the humanity of those who interact with them. The real impact of this judgment will not be in its pronouncement but in its execution—will courts truly transform into spaces of inclusivity and respect? Or will this ruling be yet another forgotten directive, lost in the clutter of judicial orders?

Only time will tell. But for now, this judgment serves as a powerful reminder that justice, in its truest form, is about more than laws—it is about people.